gsiofa:Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

Because, if you make it a habit, your opponent starts to confuse your lengthy diplomacy efforts for simply running away.He sooner resorts to driving over every border with tanks. This creates bigger diplomatic kerfuffles and the risk of more violence.

/and lets be honest, how much is any promise of security from the west worth if everyone who signs on either dies in a revolt or gets invaded?/Not saying that nukes are the only answer, but a little saber rattling wouldn't hurt./Altho too much could be confused with parkinsons.

demaL-demaL-yeH:super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: zerkalo: Republicans have battered-wife syndrome regarding Putin. They can't comprehend how anti-American he is because he is the enemy of their enemy.

Thanks for reminding me of another disgusting characteristic of the Birchers and their FoxNews-viewing followers: They really believe that fellow Americans who don't agree with their politics are enemies.

There's a double-poe going on here I just know it.

[img353.imageshack.us image 399x240]It's wrong of me to find the mindset that produces crap like this disgusting?

Imaginary people who joke about shooting people they disagree with in a Russia discussion aside, I was talking about accusing others of being sympathetic to an anti-american leader and then accuse them of labeling people who they disagree with the enemy.

It's a sign of political hysteria, or at least lack of self awareness.

Don't try to tell me that the current crop of Republicans don't claim these values. Don't tell me that Ann Coulter, Roger Ailes and his talking hairdo crew, Limbaugh, Savage, and the rest of talk radio aren't espousing those views and calling "liberals" - whatever that means - "enemies of America." Tell me those stickers, and many more with messages along those lines, are imaginary, and that I don't see them plastered on the backs of vehicles pretty much daily.

Those radio loudmouths represent half of America as much as Olbermann, Mahler, or Moore do the other.

And last time I checked, none of them shot anyone for disagreeing. Don't assume that those other people hate you as much as you hate them.

gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

Because, if you make it a habit, your opponent starts to confuse your lengthy diplomacy efforts for simply running away.He sooner resorts to driving over every border with tanks. This creates bigger diplomatic kerfuffles and the risk of more violence.

/and lets be honest, how much is any promise of security from the west worth if everyone who signs on either dies in a revolt or gets invaded?/Not saying that nukes are the only answer, but a little saber rattling wouldn't hurt./Altho too much could be confused with parkinsons.

For the same reason the USSR backed off and pulled their nukes (and military) from Cuba, the USA needs to not plant itself on another of Russia's borders.

And directly attacking Russia's military? Let's try talking first. Even without nukes, I don't want carrier groups to start sinking in random parts of the world.

eurotrader:The Ukraine does have its own pretty sizable military and they have stayed out of it so why should any other country even bother. Putin has always considered the Crimea part of Russia and the Naval base there important if Russia is ever to be considered a world power again or at least in the minds of Russians. Obama would have been better to ignore it publicly for the weekend and on Monday it should be done, It does not matter what he says it will be attacked anyway. There is no benefit to the US to do anything and most of the residents of the area speak Russian anyway and they western part in need of aid is still looking for cash.

While the reasons you have stated are very thought provoking, they will not deter an idiot. Better let Obama know that the Crimea can happily boast: "No we have no bananas!"

/on an aside/this comment is not meant to be racists but, then again liberal America considers anyone who pokes fun at any person of color (which should certainly include Benny Hill in blackface) a racist./A double secret racist if they disagree with him

super_grass:demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: zerkalo: Republicans have battered-wife syndrome regarding Putin. They can't comprehend how anti-American he is because he is the enemy of their enemy.

Thanks for reminding me of another disgusting characteristic of the Birchers and their FoxNews-viewing followers: They really believe that fellow Americans who don't agree with their politics are enemies.

There's a double-poe going on here I just know it.

[img353.imageshack.us image 399x240]It's wrong of me to find the mindset that produces crap like this disgusting?

Imaginary people who joke about shooting people they disagree with in a Russia discussion aside, I was talking about accusing others of being sympathetic to an anti-american leader and then accuse them of labeling people who they disagree with the enemy.

It's a sign of political hysteria, or at least lack of self awareness.

Don't try to tell me that the current crop of Republicans don't claim these values. Don't tell me that Ann Coulter, Roger Ailes and his talking hairdo crew, Limbaugh, Savage, and the rest of talk radio aren't espousing those views and calling "liberals" - whatever that means - "enemies of America." Tell me those stickers, and many more with messages along those lines, are imaginary, and that I don't see them plastered on the backs of vehicles pretty much daily.

Those radio loudmouths represent half of America as much as Olbermann, Mahler, or Moore do the other.

And last time I checked, none of them shot anyone for disagreeing. Don't assume that those other people hate you as much as you hate them.

Now find me examples of Olberhann, Maher, or Moore calling for killing fellow Americans.Or went out and murdered people.Find me some left-wing McVeighs, Pages, Harphams, Thomases, Rudolphs, and Kahls.

demaL-demaL-yeH:super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: zerkalo: Republicans have battered-wife syndrome regarding Putin. They can't comprehend how anti-American he is because he is the enemy of their enemy.

Thanks for reminding me of another disgusting characteristic of the Birchers and their FoxNews-viewing followers: They really believe that fellow Americans who don't agree with their politics are enemies.

There's a double-poe going on here I just know it.

[img353.imageshack.us image 399x240]It's wrong of me to find the mindset that produces crap like this disgusting?

Imaginary people who joke about shooting people they disagree with in a Russia discussion aside, I was talking about accusing others of being sympathetic to an anti-american leader and then accuse them of labeling people who they disagree with the enemy.

It's a sign of political hysteria, or at least lack of self awareness.

Don't try to tell me that the current crop of Republicans don't claim these values. Don't tell me that Ann Coulter, Roger Ailes and his talking hairdo crew, Limbaugh, Savage, and the rest of talk radio aren't espousing those views and calling "liberals" - whatever that means - "enemies of America." Tell me those stickers, and many more with messages along those lines, are imaginary, and that I don't see them plastered on the backs of vehicles pretty much daily.

Those radio loudmouths represent half of America as much as Olbermann, Mahler, or Moore do the other.

And last time I checked, none of them shot anyone for disagreeing. Don't assume that those other people hate you as much as you hate them.

Now find me examples of Olberhann, Maher, or Moore calling for killing fellow Americans.Or went out and murdered people.Find me some left-wing McVeighs, Pages, Harphams, Thomases, Rudolphs, and Kahls.

Don't let the wingnut advocating for WW3 derail the conversation. Walk it back each time. Make him own his stances. Otherwise it's just another gish gallop and you're chasing along as he fills the thread with useless noise.

demaL-demaL-yeH:super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: zerkalo: Republicans have battered-wife syndrome regarding Putin. They can't comprehend how anti-American he is because he is the enemy of their enemy.

Thanks for reminding me of another disgusting characteristic of the Birchers and their FoxNews-viewing followers: They really believe that fellow Americans who don't agree with their politics are enemies.

There's a double-poe going on here I just know it.

[img353.imageshack.us image 399x240]It's wrong of me to find the mindset that produces crap like this disgusting?

Imaginary people who joke about shooting people they disagree with in a Russia discussion aside, I was talking about accusing others of being sympathetic to an anti-american leader and then accuse them of labeling people who they disagree with the enemy.

It's a sign of political hysteria, or at least lack of self awareness.

Don't try to tell me that the current crop of Republicans don't claim these values. Don't tell me that Ann Coulter, Roger Ailes and his talking hairdo crew, Limbaugh, Savage, and the rest of talk radio aren't espousing those views and calling "liberals" - whatever that means - "enemies of America." Tell me those stickers, and many more with messages along those lines, are imaginary, and that I don't see them plastered on the backs of vehicles pretty much daily.

Those radio loudmouths represent half of America as much as Olbermann, Mahler, or Moore do the other.

And last time I checked, none of them shot anyone for disagreeing. Don't assume that those other people hate you as much as you hate them.

Now find me examples of Olberhann, Maher, or Moore calling for killing fellow Americans.Or went out and murdered people.Find me some left-wing McVeighs, Pages, Harphams, Thomases, Rudolphs, and Kahls.

All of this is besides the point of why the hell are you judging half the country based on the absolute worst examples you find? Would you judge all Muslims over Osama or all animal rights activists because of PETA? The left had a huge rash of terrorism in the cold war era too, clearly McCarthy was right.

- Kick Russia out of the G8- EU stops buying Russian gas and oil (petro exports to Europe are the only thing separating Russia from third-world shiatholes)- Full NATO and EU membership for Western Ukraine, with treaty protection- Sanctions, trade restrictions, including personal travel bans and asset seizures against Putin and his oligarchs (no more villas in the tropics)

Were all that to happen, Russia's power would be halved within a decade. Long term, this invasion looks like a bad move for Russia.

Wake Up Sheeple:demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: zerkalo: Republicans have battered-wife syndrome regarding Putin. They can't comprehend how anti-American he is because he is the enemy of their enemy.

Thanks for reminding me of another disgusting characteristic of the Birchers and their FoxNews-viewing followers: They really believe that fellow Americans who don't agree with their politics are enemies.

There's a double-poe going on here I just know it.

[img353.imageshack.us image 399x240]It's wrong of me to find the mindset that produces crap like this disgusting?

Imaginary people who joke about shooting people they disagree with in a Russia discussion aside, I was talking about accusing others of being sympathetic to an anti-american leader and then accuse them of labeling people who they disagree with the enemy.

It's a sign of political hysteria, or at least lack of self awareness.

Don't try to tell me that the current crop of Republicans don't claim these values. Don't tell me that Ann Coulter, Roger Ailes and his talking hairdo crew, Limbaugh, Savage, and the rest of talk radio aren't espousing those views and calling "liberals" - whatever that means - "enemies of America." Tell me those stickers, and many more with messages along those lines, are imaginary, and that I don't see them plastered on the backs of vehicles pretty much daily.

Those radio loudmouths represent half of America as much as Olbermann, Mahler, or Moore do the other.

And last time I checked, none of them shot anyone for disagreeing. Don't assume that those other people hate you as much as you hate them.

Now find me examples of Olberhann, Maher, or Moore calling for killing fellow Americans.Or went out and murdered people.Find me some left-wing McVeighs, Pages, Harphams, Thomases, Rudolphs, and Kahls.

Don't let the wingnut advocating for WW3 derail the conversation. Walk it back each time. Make him own his stances. Otherwis ...

Wake Up Sheeple:super_grass: gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

We can manage to cut off Russia on its one military port in the Caspian sea.

Are you serious? Are you advocating for military intervention against Russia?

Answer this question, super_grass. I'm not quoting your right-wing vitriol you spewed later in the thread.

Wake Up Sheeple:Don't let the wingnut advocating for WW3 derail the conversation. Walk it back each time. Make him own his stances. Otherwise it's just another gish gallop and you're chasing along as he fills the thread with useless noise.

What Russia is doing on sovereign Ukraine territory is extremely dangerous and provocative.This is the kind of nightmare that haunts military planners, diplomats, and sane people everywhere.Putin's move greatly strengthens the interim government in Ukraine: By invading, he gave Ukrainians a common external enemy to unite against.They may have had strong disagreements about whether to align more closely with Russia or with the West, but since independence, they've come to think of themselves as Ukrainians.

demaL-demaL-yeH:Wake Up Sheeple: Don't let the wingnut advocating for WW3 derail the conversation. Walk it back each time. Make him own his stances. Otherwise it's just another gish gallop and you're chasing along as he fills the thread with useless noise.

What Russia is doing on sovereign Ukraine territory is extremely dangerous and provocative.This is the kind of nightmare that haunts military planners, diplomats, and sane people everywhere.Putin's move greatly strengthens the interim government in Ukraine: By invading, he gave Ukrainians a common external enemy to unite against.They may have had strong disagreements about whether to align more closely with Russia or with the West, but since independence, they've come to think of themselves as Ukrainians.

It is. And it's very delicate. Some people in this thread are calling for the USA to intervene militarily right off the bat. I believe they're insane, or at the very least, extremely ignorant.

Wake Up Sheeple:Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

We can manage to cut off Russia on its one military port in the Caspian sea.

Are you serious? Are you advocating for military intervention against Russia?

Answer this question, super_grass. I'm not quoting your right-wing vitriol you spewed later in the thread.

Calm down, bro. You're the one being all angry and passive aggressive.

You can achieve these goals without firing a shot, like how we kept the Spratly islands or Taiwan away from China without a single nuke launched.

And I consider myself one of the libbiest lib who ever libbed, so check yourself.

gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

Because, if you make it a habit, your opponent starts to confuse your lengthy diplomacy efforts for simply running away.He sooner resorts to driving over every border with tanks. This creates bigger diplomatic kerfuffles and the risk of more violence.

/and lets be honest, how much is any promise of security from the west worth if everyone who signs on either dies in a revolt or gets invaded?/Not saying that nukes are the only answer, but a little saber rattling wouldn't hurt./Altho too much could be confused with parkinsons.

For the same reason the USSR backed off and pulled their nukes (and military) from Cuba, the USA needs to not plant itself on another of Russia's borders.

And directly attacking Russia's military? Let's try talking first. Even without nukes, I don't want carrier groups to start sinking in random parts of the world.

If you're afraid that they'll use anti ship weapons they've never tested successfully (much less threatened to use against you) to the point that you can't even pretend you're willing to use force, they'll just keep pushing. Our "no" doesn't have any meaning behind it.

/Openly allow one encroachment after another/but suddenly you're miffed when they build an invasion fleet and plant some missiles off of Florida./Of course the Kremlin will get confused when you're sending mixed signals all the time.

super_grass:Wake Up Sheeple: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

We can manage to cut off Russia on its one military port in the Caspian sea.

Are you serious? Are you advocating for military intervention against Russia?

Answer this question, super_grass. I'm not quoting your right-wing vitriol you spewed later in the thread.

Calm down, bro. You're the one being all angry and passive aggressive.

You can achieve these goals without firing a shot, like how we kept the Spratly islands or Taiwan away from China without a single nuke launched.

And I consider myself one of the libbiest lib who ever libbed, so check yourself.

Or how we successfully kept Korea as one nation, or how we kept South Vietnam from being overrun?

China still considers Taiwan part of its territory, and we've stepped back. If China wants it, we're going to retreat rather than lob nukes and lose carrier groups, and China damn well knows it.

You can also call yourself "the libbiest lib" but you're advocating positions that are contrary. You need to look into a mirror. Talk about not being self-aware.

way south:Wake Up Sheeple: way south: So the reset thing still on or what?

gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

Because, if you make it a habit, your opponent starts to confuse your lengthy diplomacy efforts for simply running away.He sooner resorts to driving over every border with tanks. This creates bigger diplomatic kerfuffles and the risk of more violence.

/and lets be honest, how much is any promise of security from the west worth if everyone who signs on either dies in a revolt or gets invaded?/Not saying that nukes are the only answer, but a little saber rattling wouldn't hurt./Altho too much could be confused with parkinsons.

For the same reason the USSR backed off and pulled their nukes (and military) from Cuba, the USA needs to not plant itself on another of Russia's borders.

And directly attacking Russia's military? Let's try talking first. Even without nukes, I don't want carrier groups to start sinking in random parts of the world.

If you're afraid that they'll use anti ship weapons they've never tested successfully (much less threatened to use against you) to the point that you can't even pretend you're willing to use force, they'll just keep pushing.

/Openly allow one encroachment after another/but suddenly you're miffed when they build an invasion fleet and plant some missiles off of Florida./Of course the Kremlin will get confused when you're sending mixed signals all the time.

Telling someone to not do something that is not good, and trying to be diplomatic first, then slowly escalating, is not a good tactic? No one in the world was going to mind if we blew the USSR into a giant smoking super-crater for sneakily putting nukes 90 miles off our coast. Build a consensus, and a coalition. Then start rattling that saber.

Wake Up Sheeple:super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

We can manage to cut off Russia on its one military port in the Caspian sea.

Are you serious? Are you advocating for military intervention against Russia?

Answer this question, super_grass. I'm not quoting your right-wing vitriol you spewed later in the thread.

Calm down, bro. You're the one being all angry and passive aggressive.

You can achieve these goals without firing a shot, like how we kept the Spratly islands or Taiwan away from China without a single nuke launched.

And I consider myself one of the libbiest lib who ever libbed, so check yourself.

Or how we successfully kept Korea as one nation, or how we kept South Vietnam from being overrun?

China still considers Taiwan part of its territory, and we've stepped back. If China wants it, we're going to retreat rather than lob nukes and lose carrier groups, and China damn well knows it.

You can also call yourself "the libbiest lib" but you're advocating positions that are contrary. You need to look into a mirror. Talk about not being self-aware.

That's just weak, I mean, your position makes Chamberlain look like Genghis Khan.

America doesn't outspend the next ten military budgets combined for nothing. I'd be pissed if the military didn't use that force to contain local powers in check after all the money dumped into it. I don't want a shooting war, but if the US can be opportunistic in keeping the Kremlin in check then I'm all for it.

And China is not going to take Taiwan or the Spratlys any time soon, Taiwan and Japan has enough US military aid to put up a decent fight themselves if push comes to blow.

What we need now is a goosestepping dick-in-hand neocon chickenhawk who never served in the military, except maybe a silverspoon VIP National Guard unit, to send lower middle class kids off to die while providing tax cuts to his rich cronies.

DamnYankees:This is just the weirdest talking point. Can anyone give a single actual military option they want Obama to employ?

Realistically, I can't. But in a perfect world, I'd love to assist Ukrainians militarily with weapons and training.

Once you're injured, the dogs start circling to pick your bones clean. Someday this will happen to us and it's gonna be ugly. I hate to see it happen to any country that was struggling for progress.

Russia is a festering cesspool of good old boy and old ways corruption. In many ways, Putin is really holding them back and he's duplicitous as hell playing the lover during the Olympics and the fighter the moment the press is out of his face.

super_grass:Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

We can manage to cut off Russia on its one military port in the Caspian sea.

Are you serious? Are you advocating for military intervention against Russia?

Answer this question, super_grass. I'm not quoting your right-wing vitriol you spewed later in the thread.

Calm down, bro. You're the one being all angry and passive aggressive.

You can achieve these goals without firing a shot, like how we kept the Spratly islands or Taiwan away from China without a single nuke launched.

And I consider myself one of the libbiest lib who ever libbed, so check yourself.

Or how we successfully kept Korea as one nation, or how we kept South Vietnam from being overrun?

China still considers Taiwan part of its territory, and we've stepped back. If China wants it, we're going to retreat rather than lob nukes and lose carrier groups, and China damn well knows it.

You can also call yourself "the libbiest lib" but you're advocating positions that are contrary. You need to look into a mirror. Talk about not being self-aware.

That's just weak, I mean, your position makes Chamberlain look like Genghis Khan.

America doesn't outspend the next ten military budgets combined for nothing. I'd be pissed if the military didn't use that force to contain local powers in check after all the money dumped into it. I don't want a shooting war, but if the US can be opportunistic in keeping the Kremlin in check then I'm all for it.

And China is not going to take Taiwan or the Spratlys any time soon, Taiwan and Japan has enough US military aid to put up a decent fight themselves if push comes to blow.

You ARE advocating WW3. And for unimportant territories that will be fine regardless. You're insane.

In this case I have to agree that Russia has no a whole lot of options regarding keeping their seaports accessible but if this is about Obama and his uselessness... C'mon Dems. In all reality, and strictly speaking of foreign policy what has Obama done besides sit on his hands?NOT ONE. GOD. DAMN. USEFUL. THING.We need to give this coont of man(?) the Nobel Peace Prize for something.. We'll think of a reason after the fact..

Wake Up Sheeple:Why do people feel that Obama can't first open a dialogue with Putin, trying to diplomatically solve a situation, rather than go in guns blazing like a Texan cowboy?

F'ing morans.

Because anyone who is an actual military strategist isn't wasting time typing responses on Fark.com. These people are Armchair Military Strategists with no vision for the future and no comprehension for the consequences war.

They want ACTION NOW NO WAFFLING OR DECISION MAKING THAT'S FOR PUSSIES

Wake Up Sheeple:super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

We can manage to cut off Russia on its one military port in the Caspian sea.

Are you serious? Are you advocating for military intervention against Russia?

Answer this question, super_grass. I'm not quoting your right-wing vitriol you spewed later in the thread.

Calm down, bro. You're the one being all angry and passive aggressive.

You can achieve these goals without firing a shot, like how we kept the Spratly islands or Taiwan away from China without a single nuke launched.

And I consider myself one of the libbiest lib who ever libbed, so check yourself.

Or how we successfully kept Korea as one nation, or how we kept South Vietnam from being overrun?

China still considers Taiwan part of its territory, and we've stepped back. If China wants it, we're going to retreat rather than lob nukes and lose carrier groups, and China damn well knows it.

You can also call yourself "the libbiest lib" but you're advocating positions that are contrary. You need to look into a mirror. Talk about not being self-aware.

That's just weak, I mean, your position makes Chamberlain look like Genghis Khan.

America doesn't outspend the next ten military budgets combined for nothing. I'd be pissed if the military didn't use that force to contain local powers in check after all the money dumped into it. I don't want a shooting war, but if the US can be opportunistic in keeping the Kremlin in check then I'm all for it.

And China is not going to take Taiwan or the Spratlys any time soon, Taiwan and Japan has enough US military aid to put up a decent fight themselves if push comes to blow.

You ARE advocating WW3. And for unimportant territories that will be fine regardless. You're insane.

The US intervened in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc, and WWIII has yet to start, and that's WITH shots fired, which nobody is advocating now.

WWIII is only going to happen if leaders were like you and recoiled at their own shadows, which thank god they're not. Park some battleships in nearby, speak softly, and carry a big stick.

super_grass:Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

We can manage to cut off Russia on its one military port in the Caspian sea.

Are you serious? Are you advocating for military intervention against Russia?

Answer this question, super_grass. I'm not quoting your right-wing vitriol you spewed later in the thread.

Calm down, bro. You're the one being all angry and passive aggressive.

You can achieve these goals without firing a shot, like how we kept the Spratly islands or Taiwan away from China without a single nuke launched.

And I consider myself one of the libbiest lib who ever libbed, so check yourself.

Or how we successfully kept Korea as one nation, or how we kept South Vietnam from being overrun?

China still considers Taiwan part of its territory, and we've stepped back. If China wants it, we're going to retreat rather than lob nukes and lose carrier groups, and China damn well knows it.

You can also call yourself "the libbiest lib" but you're advocating positions that are contrary. You need to look into a mirror. Talk about not being self-aware.

That's just weak, I mean, your position makes Chamberlain look like Genghis Khan.

America doesn't outspend the next ten military budgets combined for nothing. I'd be pissed if the military didn't use that force to contain local powers in check after all the money dumped into it. I don't want a shooting war, but if the US can be opportunistic in keeping the Kremlin in check then I'm all for it.

And China is not going to take Taiwan or the Spratlys any time soon, Taiwan and Japan has enough US military aid to put up a decent fight themselves if push comes to blow.

You ARE advocating WW3. And for unimportant territories that will be fine regardless. You're insane.

The US intervened in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc, and WWIII has yet to start, and that's WITH shots fired, which nobody is advocating now.WWIII is only going to happen if leaders were like you and recoiled at their own shadows, which thank god they're not. Park some battleships in nearby, speak softly, and carry a big stick.

Nope. I know the difference between a small country's military, and engaging Russia's or China's military.

To win Korea or Vietnam, we would've needed to fight to China's border and engage their troops. We blinked because we're not insane and realized that holding onto a small territory to save face was.

Sorry. No matter how you feel, no matter the president in the White House, he/she's not going to engage Russia or China directly.

Wake Up Sheeple:Nope. I know the difference between a small country's military, and engaging Russia's or China's military.

To win Korea or Vietnam, we would've needed to fight to China's border and engage their troops. We blinked because we're not insane and realized that holding onto a small territory to save face was.

Sorry. No matter how you feel, no matter the president in the White House, he/she's not going to engage Russia or China directly.

Once again, I'm not trying to start a war. Both Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars against soviet-backed troops. What's happening now is Russia playing rough in a sovereign nation that chooses to let a Russian base stay - much like how a lot of countries voluntarily let American bases stay on their soil.

Having a US force nearby might prevent Russia from playing too rough, and give Ukrainians a sense of safety if they choose to get closer to EU circles or vote to kick Russia out as a result. They can choose not to do that of course and the US will just leave of course.

Once again, I'm not trying to start a war. Both Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars against soviet-backed troops. What's happening now is Russia playing rough in a sovereign nation that chooses to let a Russian base stay - much like how a lot of countries voluntarily let American bases stay on their soil.

Having a US force nearby might prevent Russia from playing too rough, and give Ukrainians a sense of safety if they choose to get closer to EU circles or vote to kick Russia out as a result. They can choose not to do that of course and the US will just leave of course.

I'm glad you back pedaled on that point. I take back the insane. You're just naive. Russia will do as she pleases with Ukraine. No carrier group is going to make them rethink anything, if anything, it might escalate the conflict. However, negotiating like two rational adults might just work. You know... talking. I doubt you open your real-life disagreements with a punch, or showing a glint of a knife.

OscarTamerz:Poland and the rest of eastern Europe got sold into Soviet slavery by the democrats after being our invaluable allies by giving us the Enigma machine and running the best resistance in Europe until it was betrayed by Stalin at Warsaw. The democrats didn't approve of going back into Vietnam when the north was steamrolling them despite the peace treaty which said we would. Now Ukraine is asking us and NATO to honor the treaty we signed saying we'd protect their territorial integrity in exchange for giving up their nukes 20 years ago. To quote Animal House, "You screwed up, you trusted us." Obama's not going to break the democrats' perfect record of betrayal. The Russians murdered 8 million Ukrainians by starving them to death in a single winter causing The New York Times reporter to quip, "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs." I wonder how many. Ukrainians the Russians will kill this time and I wonder what aphorism the New York Times will come up with this time.

Once again, I'm not trying to start a war. Both Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars against soviet-backed troops. What's happening now is Russia playing rough in a sovereign nation that chooses to let a Russian base stay - much like how a lot of countries voluntarily let American bases stay on their soil.

Having a US force nearby might prevent Russia from playing too rough, and give Ukrainians a sense of safety if they choose to get closer to EU circles or vote to kick Russia out as a result. They can choose not to do that of course and the US will just leave of course.

I'm glad you back pedaled on that point. I take back the insane. You're just naive. Russia will do as she pleases with Ukraine. No carrier group is going to make them rethink anything, if anything, it might escalate the conflict. However, negotiating like two rational adults might just work. You know... talking. I doubt you open your real-life disagreements with a punch, or showing a glint of a knife.

What did I backpedal on? Some imaginary statement I made about aggression towards Russia? Diplomacy is backed by force or the threat of it, which the US should absolutely take advantage of.

And for you information, the last World War started over unchecked regional aggression, not deterrent and immediate response.

Once again, I'm not trying to start a war. Both Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars against soviet-backed troops. What's happening now is Russia playing rough in a sovereign nation that chooses to let a Russian base stay - much like how a lot of countries voluntarily let American bases stay on their soil.

Having a US force nearby might prevent Russia from playing too rough, and give Ukrainians a sense of safety if they choose to get closer to EU circles or vote to kick Russia out as a result. They can choose not to do that of course and the US will just leave of course.

I'm glad you back pedaled on that point. I take back the insane. You're just naive. Russia will do as she pleases with Ukraine. No carrier group is going to make them rethink anything, if anything, it might escalate the conflict. However, negotiating like two rational adults might just work. You know... talking. I doubt you open your real-life disagreements with a punch, or showing a glint of a knife.

What did I backpedal on? Some imaginary statement I made about aggression towards Russia? Diplomacy is backed by force or the threat of it, which the US should absolutely take advantage of.

And for you information, the last World War started over unchecked regional aggression, not deterrent and immediate response.

And now it's "imaginary." The record in the posts above bears me out.

Diplomacy starts with talking. Sending carrier groups to Russia's backyard will escalate badly. Do you think Russia is a 3rd World banana republic military that can be easily steamrolled with a swift boat and a couple of machine guns? Russia will not want us in Ukraine just as much as we didn't want Russia in Cuba.

WW2 was a lot more complicated. This is a border dispute between a super-power and a renegade state, essentially an unresolved civil war if you want to be technical. Super-power. Let's repeat that. Let that sink in. This is global conflict at the flip of a switch. Anything the US can do, Russia can do. Maybe not better, maybe for not as long, but it'll hurt like a mofo, and it'll still last for quite some time.

Nope. Let's work this through all the channels first before the military.

boinkingbill:voking, they will not deter an idiot. Better let Obama know that the Crimea can happily boast: "No we have no bananas!"

/on an aside/this comment is not meant to be racists but, then again liberal America considers anyone who pokes fun at any person of color (which should certainly include Benny Hill in blackface) a racist.

Benny Hill and the UK don't exactly have the same history with racism as we do in the states. But of course you know that don't you?

Once again, I'm not trying to start a war. Both Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars against soviet-backed troops. What's happening now is Russia playing rough in a sovereign nation that chooses to let a Russian base stay - much like how a lot of countries voluntarily let American bases stay on their soil.

Having a US force nearby might prevent Russia from playing too rough, and give Ukrainians a sense of safety if they choose to get closer to EU circles or vote to kick Russia out as a result. They can choose not to do that of course and the US will just leave of course.

I'm glad you back pedaled on that point. I take back the insane. You're just naive. Russia will do as she pleases with Ukraine. No carrier group is going to make them rethink anything, if anything, it might escalate the conflict. However, negotiating like two rational adults might just work. You know... talking. I doubt you open your real-life disagreements with a punch, or showing a glint of a knife.

What did I backpedal on? Some imaginary statement I made about aggression towards Russia? Diplomacy is backed by force or the threat of it, which the US should absolutely take advantage of.

And for you information, the last World War started over unchecked regional aggression, not deterrent and immediate response.

And now it's "imaginary." The record in the posts above bears me out.

Diplomacy starts with talking. Sending carrier groups to Russia's backyard will escalate badly. Do you think Russia is a 3rd World banana republic military that can be easily steamrolled with a swift boat and a couple of machine guns? Russia will not want us in Ukraine just as much as we didn't want Russia in Cuba.

WW2 was a lot more complicated. This is a border dispute between a super-power and a renegade state, essentially an unresolved civil war if you want to be technical. Super-power. Let's repeat that. Let that sink in. This is global conflict at the flip of a switch. A ...

Russia is not the USSR, and they have fallen a lot since then. They're not nearly as unstable as you think, which we can see with the various US bases established next to it after the USSR collapsed.

We don't have to treat Russia as an equal now, and having a military deterrent prevents a bigger diplomatic crisis from emerging out of Ukraine in the first place.